Not sure if clown..
or really successful troll.
16 posts • joined 7 Jul 2010
or really successful troll.
I think the ASD division is the only area I see a decent amount of innovation coming through from them. ViPR is fairly innovative in comparision to what the other big sorage vendors are doings, as is ScaleIO which is another of the products which i can see upsetting the applecart.
I'm an EMC customer but they have fustrated me considerably over the last few years. They have bought in lots of technologies to plug gaps that they have not been able to predict, resulting in a mish mash of products and managements points and then when they do something innovattive the same short sighted people shoot it down to protect their own vested interests.
I can't help but think that we are looking at a series of decisions that in the 10 years time will see EMC storage division end up like IBMs PC business did, ie commoditised to the degree that it adds such little value and it might as well be delivered by the cheapest provider possible.
I think the problem with that is that you dont compare apples with apples if you go for capacity shipped either. HPs 3Par claim you need less disk than an equivilent EMC array because it has more efficent 'thin' technologies, and then Netapp will come along and say 'I can dedupe all that and sell your 50% of the disk of the 3par to do the same job. Admittedly this is not an entirely accurate example, but the point is that neither revenues nor shipped capacity are a particulay good measure of the of the company or product. Even no. unique customers per vendor could be skewed towards to the vendor with the biggest marketing and sales team as opposed the better products.
Its blimin difficult and means lots of research, of which this is a fairly meaningless marketing statisic..
But I don't think that is a bad thing. It means there there is a thriving eco systems of partner products to the VMware suite - something the Hyper-V / SCVMM platform from Microsoft needs IMHO. I'm a VMUG member in the UK and have to agree that there really is nothing like it from a Microsoft perspective I don't think. I'll probably mark myself out as light weight techie by saying that I'm actually a big fan of both companys and their data centre technology stacks specifically - Windows Server 2012 with system center is great and I really like the whole VMware SDDC vision.
I have to say that whilst there is overlap I think there is definite distinction between the two companys directions. VMware almost seem to be saying 'we want to abstract and manage your data centre infrastructure' whilst Microsoft are saying ' we want to abstract and manage your workloads and if they happen to move to Azure then great, btw heres our new SCE server licence model to help you there'.
For me Microsoft have a problem though. The old ECI licence model was great to stand up Server 2012 with system centre and create a private cloud. It suited virtualisation hosts. The SCE model replaces this and FORCES you to licence every other Server licence in your estate under the same SCE, whether they are virtualised or not, whether it is cost effective or not, It applies a blanket coverage.
For me this is Microsofts 'VM Memory Tax' moment and it could well bite them in the proverbial. Where as ECI was really cost effective and allowed Microsof to make the argument to CIOs that they 'already had software for a cloud licenced - why pay for VMWare' completly null. In our scenario the cost difference to take VMware vCloud suite plus plain old Server 2012 data centre licencing rather licence EVERY server instance under SCE is pretty much gone.
Not difficult, I went to Barcelona last year and it was a complete sausage fest. Or Chorizo, take your pick,
That song is going to be stuck in my head all day....
Or is that there are credable alternitives out there? Both in the form of KVM / HyperV / Xen etc in the data centre, but also that public cloud providers are offering a way to avoid large capital spends altogether?
If you plan to virtualise BizTalk (or SQL for that matter) then previously the socket option hammered you for every potential virtualisation host the server could reside on. So if I have a vmware cluster of four two socket hosts then I had to buy eight socket licences. This is if the VM itself only had four cores assigned.
The move to per core licencing supports the move to virtualising more of your estate as it makes it CHEAPER to do so and anyone who says you can't have SQL or BizTalk perform in a VM environment needs to reevaluate in my opinion.
Alas if you had watched the session rather than passing comment on the 'subtext' of the article then you would have seen that wasn't the case. Your loss unless they publish the video, which if they do I would recommend you watch as virtualisation was barely mentioned. I think too often people think cloud = virtualisation. Virtualisation can be an enabler for cloud, but a cloud doesnt HAVE to have virtualisation underpinning it to be fall in the definitions of cloud as defined by NIST. I'd highly recommend reading the NIST documentation around cloud definitions if you have time.
First comment made before the session started and the second comment in no way reflecting any of the discussion that was had, especially the points around management. I would highly recommend you both actually watch the session before espewing misdirected vitrol....
I think you would actually be pleasantly suprised by the content of the message as its actually all about developing public cloud capabilitys in your own datecentre. If you believe cloud = virtualisation somewhere else then I would say you aremissing both the point and an oppourtunity.
Reg peeps - when will the video of the session be published?
Note - in no way connected to any of the companys involved.
You express outrage at an 'unsubstantiated and vague claim' and your counter is that 'you know a bloke that heard from someone else that they had a different opinion?'
Thank you for that insightful additon to the debate! I look forward to getting the substantiated and less vague version of the events at some point in the future...
On a seperate note I think that this is a real loss for VMware. I was lucky enough to be at VMworld Barcalona last year and thought Steve Herrod came across really well and was obviously very much a company man. I wonder how much of this is related to Gelsingers arrival at the company?
The storage? the Hypervisor? I suppose flexpod does give you an alternitive in that respect
Most people that deploy Windows in a virtualised environment, whether VMware, Hyper-v, Xen or whatever, will use Microsoft ECI licencing model as it licenced per socket on the virtualisation host for unlimited instances. The thing with ECI is that it also includes all the rights to use the whole system center suite on those VMs. This is when it starts looking really attractive. Having spent the second half of last year reviewing private cloud solutions I am confident that the suite provides a comphrehensive platform at a fraction of the cost of it competitor. This is due to the fact that if you want equivilent functionality in the VMware world you need to buy vCentre, plus vCloud director, plus vOps manager etc and all of these ancillary products are licenced per vM - this gets far more expensive as you scale. As Mcirosoft licence per socket you are rewarded with better economies of scale.
If the Microsoft solution is 'good enough' which for most IT shops I suggest it will be, then why pay many multiples more or something broadly equivilent? Start looking at Windows 8 Server Hyper-v and microsoft look to take a clear lead on the functionality front too. I have no beef with VMware, we currently deploy it and hosts hundreds of VMs on it. However the cost is prohibitative and in the current climate I'd rather move to Microsoft that invest further in VMware for a product where the value aspect is diminishing.
I work for a large building society and we are looking very closely at moving from VMware to HyperV. The hypervisor is now a commodity item, is doesnt really matter whether you use HyperV, ESXI or Xen. The real benefits come from the management wrap that vCenter and Microsoft System Centre tools provide. For a company that has already invested in SCCM / SCOM and other microsoft tools, their are significant savings to be made by moving from the very costly VMware products (and I don't see this getting cheaper with recent vSphere 5 announcements) to a full Microsoft virtualisation stack. Not to mention that System Centre Virtual Machine Manager can manage ESX hosts as well as Hyper V hosts during your intial swing / migration period :)
ITIL usually fails in organsiations where 'techies' have more influence over IT than the business and run roughshod over anything they percieve to introduce extra 'work' into their daily lives. Thinking specifically things like change management. It should also be said that ITIL isn't the be all and end all and should be used in conjunction with other frameworks that support IT and the business like TOGAF, RiskIT, COBIT etc. Taking the best of each is more likely to yield a more comprehensive, wider scoped, service delivery function.
I apologise if you have mentioned this already but there is a Microsoft tool out there for tracking GPO versioning and tracking changes: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/enterprise/products/mdop/agpm.aspx